Appeal No. 2001-1740
Application 08/902,466
application in its entirety should be made to determine
whether the inventors intended such language to represent an
additional structural limitation or mere introductory
language. Id.
A review of the record in the instant application, and
particularly the portions of the underlying specification
describing the background problems and objectives of the
appellant’s invention, clearly demonstrates that the appellant
intended the “game call apparatus” language in the preambles
of independent claims 62, 69 and 83 to represent a structural
limitation giving life and meaning to the claims. The
somewhat redundant recitation of a “game call” in the bodies
of these claims confirms this intent. Simply put, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not view Schofield’s cotton
picking tube and machine as embodying a game call or a game
call apparatus.
The examiner’s determination to the contrary, which is based
solely on the premise that the Schofield apparatus is capable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007